Forums | MacLife

Hank and Jerwin: Thanks for the info, but could each or both describe in 'plain english' just what the conclusion is to all this discourse?

If I get the gist of what is being said -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that 'natural selection' can, like a magnet, zero in on any number of mutations to find, "a fair number of "solutions" to various challenges."

That sounds very much like evolution to me. In my view, it suggests that it may be in the nature of the universe (including all 'stuff' from cosmic to subatomic) to combine and recombine, detach and separate by various activity, into constructions that are highly intricate such that it 'appears' it can only be described as 'designed.'

For a simple example: My old college professor once used the construct that when stones in a random stretch and placement along a sandy beach were washed with high tide, at low tide, those stones seemed to have arranged themselves in an organized pattern like some unknown hand would do. Yet, there is no 'intelligence' in the action of the waves that brought about the pattern.

That's pretty much the way I view 'god' in the natural activity of the universe. Of course, we're still faced with the question, Who made it if it was made? And, the stronger question before that, If god exists, who made god?

Sassy wrote:

If I get the gist of what is being said -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that 'natural selection' can, like a magnet, zero in on any number of mutations to find, "a fair number of "solutions" to various challenges."

Basically, yes.  If you read Dennett or Dawkins (and doubtless others as well) you will uncover the idea of "design space", or some such.  Basically, it is the realm of all possible solutions (successful or not) and the linkages between one such design and another.  It turns out that there are, in most cases, so many potential designs and so many potential routes between one design to another that any one design will seem to have a low possibility of existence, but it just so happens that natural selection can hit upon that design.

That is not to say that there are not other equally good (or even better) designs available.  It is just that either those designs are unreachable ("you can't get there from here") or they have not yet been reached.

Sassy wrote:

sounds very much like evolution to me.

It is.

Sassy wrote:

In my view, it suggests that it may be in the nature of the universe (including all 'stuff' from cosmic to subatomic) to combine and recombine, detach and separate by various activity, into constructions that are highly intricate such that it 'appears' it can only be described as 'designed.'

Could be.  See above about "design space".  However, such a system does not preclude the possibility of a designer who designed the system.  As an analogy, there are computer programs that are made this way these days (i.e., by natural selection in "design space").  When one of the resultant programs shows some utility, it may be just one of a number of possible solutions.  However, one cannot attribute the "creation" of the program to the computer that came across the solution.  Rather, credit for the "creation" of the program goes to the person that designed the system from which the program arose.  That person used natural laws and mathematical algorithms to find a solution to the problem, and the computer that generated the solution was just the medium acting under the influence of the designed algorithm.  The person, in this case, is the "creator".  The computer is not, nor is the generation of the program "random", per se.

Sassy wrote:

For a simple example: My old college professor once used the construct that when stones in a random stretch and placement along a sandy beach were washed with high tide, at low tide, those stones seemed to have arranged themselves in an organized pattern like some unknown hand would do. Yet, there is no 'intelligence' in the action of the waves that brought about the pattern.

It is an interesting analogy, but not quite the same as natural selection.  Both are natural processes, to be sure.  And both rely on natural "laws" to work.  However, the beach always arrives at pretty much the same "solution", and there really is no "problem. Whereas natural selection has more variable solutions to defined problems.

The analogies of natural selection of computer programs or drugs, or selection of domestic animals seem to work a bit better, IMHO.

Sassy wrote:

That's pretty much the way I view 'god' in the natural activity of the universe. Of course, we're still faced with the question, Who made it if it was made? And, the stronger question before that, If god exists, who made god?

Answer to question 1 - see my above response
Answer to question 2 -

Last edited by Hank Rearden (2005-08-24 3:31 pm)

Sassy wrote:

Isn't that the final conclusion that ID is trying to say happened?

ID proposes that there are certain elements of the natural world that could not have come about by "natural" means.  In other words, certain features of the world are not explorable by scientists, but only could possibly be "revealed" by the creator.

ID-ists, for instance, believe in a certain amount of evolution, but only evolution from a created point.  In other words, an ID-ist might believe that the finches of the Galapagos arose, in their varieties, by natural selection.  But that the original finch was created as is, with some plasticity, rather than the fact that it has in its past a reptilian ancestor.

ID-ists, further, often (no always) believe that one can "prove" the existence of God, at least by inference, if not directly.

In reality, if a creator exists, then there is no reason that beings in the creation could prove Him/Her...it would depend on how things were created as to whether or not that were allowed.

As such, science explains via natural explaination, while ID tries to find things that are not explainable ny natural means, and then appeal to the supernatural.

No one can prove God.  No one can disprove Him/Her either.  Science, as it turns out, does not set out to do either of these in any case.  A Creator is, by definition, supernatural (beyond nature).  Science does not, and cannot, deal with that.

It may be that all was just "set in motion".  That may have happend with or without supernatural intervention.  I can't prove either.  It is also possible that, if the supernatural exists, then He/She interacts in a continual fashion with all that we see around us, but that we, as creations, can't detect it but instead merely detect the "natural" reaction to the "supernatural" intervention.

As to the reality of that postulate, or where God came from or where the universe came from or...or...or...

...all I can say is

If you, or anyone else out there, had the answer to those sorts fo questions, then my job as a scientist would be done as all would be explained.

cbaines wrote:

Just thinking metaphorically, sorry if it upset you. Its just a pondering... with natural selection working so well at the micro level... might it not also at all levels, even systems that aren't biological?

Perhaps a "Christian Foundation" also leads to slavery and institutionalized racism?

Well, looks liket this topic has been beaten to death...

...for the time being.

And Moving on to a new topic:

A private high school filed a discrimination lawsuit against the University of California system Thursday in Los Angeles, alleging a "Christian viewpoint' in the school's classes keeps it from meeting UC admissions requirements.
A representative for the UC president's office could not be reached to comment on the lawsuit filed on behalf of Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta and five of its students, along with a Christian schools group.

Christian school sues UC (Press-Telegram)

from the LA Times

UC had not yet been served with the suit, so spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment on its details. But she said the university had a sound legal right to set course requirements for incoming students.

"What we're doing is really for the benefit of the students," she said. "These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed."

Although private schools have the right to teach what they want, she said, students from those institutions can gain admittance to UC schools by completing the necessary course requirements at community colleges if they choose.

Those students can also request admission solely on the basis of their SAT scores, she said.

But according to the lawsuit, the odds are heavily stacked against students seeking admission through that route.

The two routes involved are
Statewide Eligibility which involves taking a prescribed set of courses

and

Eligibility by Examination

Sassy wrote:

Hank and Jerwin: Thanks for the info, but could each or both describe in 'plain english' just what the conclusion is to all this discourse?

If I get the gist of what is being said -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that 'natural selection' can, like a magnet, zero in on any number of mutations to find, "a fair number of "solutions" to various challenges."

That sounds very much like evolution to me.

The evolution has to occur before natural selection can act on it.
Darwins model was that the environment of the parent could affect the offspring - but genes say otherwise, natural selection can only choose from genes that are already there.

That means whatever random mutation happen have to be beneficial or else they are not selected by natural selection, and this poses a problem - because the gene will cease to do what is was suppose to do before it starts to do something else beneficial, and thus natural selection would work against it.

Minor changes that don't affect the function are one thing - that's quite a bit different than doing something completely different.

Random changes in your e-mail client will either have no effect, or cause it to crash - causing you to select a different e-mail client. It won't suddenly decide to become a word processor, not without intelligence behind those changes.

resedit wrote:

Random changes in your e-mail client will either have no effect, or cause it to crash - causing you to select a different e-mail client. It won't suddenly decide to become a word processor, not without intelligence behind those changes.

So are you now saying that god guided evolution?

jax wrote:

Ah, but you could argue that an email client already is a word processor. In fact, a more efficient one at that. I mean Apple's Mail already has spellchecker and has the ability to process words. Therefore, an email client already is a word processor with the ability to instantly send the finished product to the desired subject. There, I did it. I just proved evolution is the winner once and for all. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!!!

You can argue that an e-mail client has/uses a text editor, even rtf text editor - but no, you can't argue that it is a word processor.

You can, however, argue that it has a lot of code in common with a word processor - which it does, by intelligent design.

resedit wrote:

The evolution has to occur before natural selection can act on it.

Part of the trouble that I have taking you seriously on this issue is the fact that you so often display the fact that you don't know the basic facts.

Natural Selectin IS a mechanism of evolution.  A mutation must occur (or, more accurately, there must be variation) before natural selection can act on it.

You MUST use words accurately, that is part of scientific communication and debate and a big reason that top-level scientists go to school for so many years and continue to educate themselves for the rest of their careers.

resedit wrote:

Darwins model was that the environment of the parent could affect the offspring - but genes say otherwise, natural selection can only choose from genes that are already there.

No, that was Lamark's model.  And, for the most part (but not completely, surprisingly) it was wrong.  But, it was a good effort.

Darwin said that the environment would affect the fitness (i.e., the number of offspring) of an organism.  Differential survival and reproduction would, somehow, allow beneficial variations to continue.

Darwin, however, did not know about genes.  Mendel, his compatriot did, but Mendel's stuff was only published in an obscure journal.  Never-the-less, there is evidence in the form of notations in Mendel's copy of his own paper that he had an idea of the ramification of his discovery on the theory of evolution by natural selection.

resedit wrote:

That means whatever random mutation happen have to be beneficial or else they are not selected by natural selection, and this poses a problem - because the gene will cease to do what is was suppose to do before it starts to do something else beneficial, and thus natural selection would work against it.

The first part is sort of correct.  If we are speaking of evolution ONLY by natural selection (although you may not realize it, there are other mechanisms besides Darwin's that also cause genetic change in populations over time) then there must be a slightly beneficial difference.

You are dead wrong on the last part on at least fiwe counts.

1.  There are many possible mutations that change the function of a protein product of a gene in non-deleterious ways
2.  Often the pattern of evolution is (a) duplication of the gene in the genome, (b) mutation on the copy gene, leaving the function of the original intact, (c) natural selection based onfunction/result of  new, mutated copy gene
3.  Mutation need not happen on the gene itself, but can happen in a promoter region.  In other words, a gene may be "turned up" or "turned down" (that is, more or less protein product results).  The function of the protein remains the same, the amount of it present differs.  Natural selection can work on promoters, not just the genes that they control.
4. Changes in one gene, one copy gene, or one promoter mean changes in the organism in terms of the regulation of other genes as well.
5.  Most systems in the body have "back up" systems as well.  It used to be thought that everything sort of went through its own pathway, and that all portions of pathways were sacred.  But with the rise of proteomics and systems biology it has become more obvious that changes in on pathway may simply divert action to another pathway.  If the I-80 has a bad accident, you can still get from San Franscisco to Sacramento, just not quite as quickly, by other routes.  Organisms are flexible in an analogous manner.

resedit wrote:

Minor changes that don't affect the function are one thing - that's quite a bit different than doing something completely different.

Tell that to all of the insects that have developed resistance to some pretty exotic pesticides.  The genes that have mutated to do that used to deal with really quite different chemicals.  DDT hasn't been around for the past few million years.

resedit wrote:

Random changes in your e-mail client will either have no effect, or cause it to crash - causing you to select a different e-mail client. It won't suddenly decide to become a word processor, not without intelligence behind those changes.

Natural selection has not been worked into the system on your computer.  However, it sort of is in Open Source-type projects.  The fittest variations survive and the program is continually strengthened.

(editted because I obviously can't count to five...I kept coming up with great new points)

Last edited by Hank Rearden (2005-08-29 11:38 am)

The page is crap

Take that, you Darwinians! The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.

Well, yes - until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.

Natural selection does no such thing.
It has absolutely no way to tell momma bear and poppa bear how to change their genes so that baby bear can become a bird and fly away.

Natural Selection only can choose from existing genes, it can create new genes - therefore, it can NOT be the mechanism by which evolution occurs, it not the potter that makes the pot, it only chooses the pot that has already been made.

resedit wrote:

The page is crap

Take that, you Darwinians! The presumed embarrassment of the test-taker when faced with this task perfectly expresses the incredulity many people feel when they confront Darwin's great idea. It seems obvious, doesn't it, that there couldn't be any designs without designers, any such creations without a creator.

Well, yes - until you look at what contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt: that natural selection - the process in which reproducing entities must compete for finite resources and thereby engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge - has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs.

Natural selection does no such thing.
It has absolutely no way to tell momma bear and poppa bear how to change their genes so that baby bear can become a bird and fly away.

Natural Selection only can choose from existing genes, it can create new genes - therefore, it can NOT be the mechanism by which evolution occurs, it not the potter that makes the pot, it only chooses the pot that has already been made.

res, do you understand anything that proper science and practitioners of science are talking about? Read Plato's philosophy because that's all you can give us in the way of 'proof.' Hank gave you a beautiful explanation concerning the mechanism of evolution and you dismiss it out of hand. And, Hank is a fellow believer as far as the existence of god is concerned.

I understand that you want to want to testify to your beliefs, but sad to say, your arguments carry no balance or evidence based on accepted scientific method. You are arguing philosophy, not science. You are arguing ideas, not facts. Thus, it is redundant and superficial.

I respect your views and your sincerity, but reject your conclusions because your premise is flawed and without foundation. Evolution is not god in the sense it is presented in the scientific community. It is a replicated, scientific fact proved over and over in various ways too numerous to state. It should not be construed as anything resembling the Christian concept of 'god.' It does not fly in the face of your belief. Try to see that.